iiiiiiSfi«i!!i;f'^:iii:9fS'ys:5^!, 




^0' .»••'♦ ^^ 



vO* »L*^'> > 



r *'i^^^' ^^ ^ ^'^%i/w.^ ^^. dy •*4sa^'. 't^ .& /. 






^-o.<i^' 














0° .«^J^'% °. .-^^ ■•^" 















c^^ 






























v^o^ 




'oK 
















v-o^ 



'bV 















5^ * ^5* vV^ ♦ .<^ «» A •<^c\ < 







^-^ ^ 






^^ 















^^' ^^ 



c'^^. 






^ '..5 



.7^, A ^ 'o,.* G^ 

.'\. v-^\«^' 'v^'^*/ V^^-'. 



^t. 












'-^^ c 




IIQZ-IQOO 



THE STORY 

OF THE 

Creation of Adams County, 

PENNSYLVANIA, 



AND OF THE 



SELECTION OF GETTYSBURG 

AS ITS 

SEAT OF JUSTICE. 



An Address before the Historical Society of Adams County, on its 
First Anniversary, May 6, 1889. 



By HON. EDWARD McPHERSON, 

PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY. 



With Map of the Territory, Showing Lines, Roads, and Settlements. 



LANCASTER, PA.: ' '>y 

INQUIRER PRINTING COMPANY.'' '^^sssgjyXsm*^ 
1889. " ' 







O\'»0H3'] 



THE ADDRESS. 



Ladies, Gentlemen, and Members of the Adams Cotuity Histor- 
ical Society : 
The Constitution of our Society makes it the duty of the 
President to deliver an address on each anniversary. This 
mandate is my excuse and justification for asking your atten- 
tion while, on this first anniversary, I try to tell the story 
of the creation of Adams county and of the selection of Get- 
tysburg as its seat of justice. This duty carries us back to the 
closinsr decade of the last centurv, and we are near the closing 
decade of this century. The contest lasted eleven years. It 
began in the spring of 1789, just one hundred years ago. It 
ended in January, 1800. The fortunes of the struggle alter- 
nated, and victory finally came to the better fighters. The 
story has never been told, either in whole or in part; yet it has 
many elements of almost dramatic interest. To the present 
generation it is as a sealed book. Yet it deserves to be told, 
and with minuteness, as a matter of historical justice and ac- 
curacy. The statements respecting it, in current publications 
which pass for history, are inaccurate and misleading, and give 
no idea of what the contest was or how the result was reached. 
The actors in it died, leaving no consecutive account of their 
part in it. And in print there is nothing to-day, of any value, 
beyond dry statements of legislative motions and votes, and 
meagre allusions in the only newspaper then printed in York. 
As a result, the little we supposed we knew rested chiefly on 
tradition. And with that we would have been obliged to be 
content, but for the fortunate preservation of a mass of papers 
which fell, at the close of the contest, into the hands of my grand- 
father, the late William McPherson, who for several years and 

(3) 



at the last was in the Legislature as a champion of the new 
county project and of Gettysburg as its seat of justice. These 
papers came through my father to me, who have, also, lately 
received, through the alert State Librarian, Dr. Wm. H. Egle, 
certain other documents found in Lancaster among the papers 
of the late Judge Yeates. Many facts, otherwise uncertain, 
become clear in the light of these interpretations. Every one 
of these papers has interest to the local inquirer. Most of 
them have distinct local value. Those containing the auto- 
graph signatures of a large portion of the taxables living in 
this region between 1789 and 1800 form a unique collection, 
in which but kw counties can surpass us. 

Our centennial is but little more than ten years off It is 
high time that we try to gather into compact and intelligible 
form, the story of how precisely the county and the county- 
seat came into existence. These manuscripts are the very 
essence of those facts. 

When the contest began, the area of York county was 1,452 
square miles, or 225 square miles larger than the present area 
of the largest county in our Commonwealth. When it ended, 
the area of York county was 921 square miles, or 21 square 
miles larger than Berks county now is, and only 52 square 
miles smaller than Lancaster now is. The division thus left 
York still one of the large counties of the State. 

Two causes combined to produce this movement. The old 
York was not symmetrical in shape, but was highly irregular. 
On its southern line, it was sixty miles from east end to west. 
On its central line, through Yorktown, it was forty-eight miles 
from end to end. On a more northerly line, it was twenty- 
seven miles, whence it ran triangularly to a point at present 
New Cumberland. North and south at the widest, it was 
thirty-three miles ; at the narrowest, fifteen, if we except the 
triangle at the south-east corner, the apex of which lies on the 
Susquehanna. Besides, the county-seat was thirty-seven miles 
from the western boundary of the county, and but twelve miles 
from the eastern boundary. This irregular region, with its 
lop-sided county-seat, v/as inhabited, from the beginning, by 



5 

a discordant people. The men of the west did not believe in, 
or work cordially, or readily confer, with the men of the east; 
and reversely. The two migrations were of different stock, 
came from different countries, spoke different languages, and 
had inharmonious training, ideas and tastes. Each nationality 
naturally sought settlement by itself, and both were happier 
when apart. Their politics differed, and both distance and 
diversity prevented fusion. Their points of repulsion proved, 
in forty years of enforced association, stronger than their points 
of attraction. The inhabitants of the west end were J:he less 
numerous, and as antagonisms developed they were seized 
with a purpose to set up for themselves. To the motives 
mentioned, probably a hope of pecuniary advantage from a 
new organization and a new county-seat came in to strengthen 
the purpose, which was reenforced by a desire to secure a 
market more convenient than Philadelphia, now made possible 
by the opening of north and south roads connecting the Cum- 
berland Valley through the Marsh creek settlement with Bal- 
timore. With an independent county organization, they ex- 
pected to increase facilities for trading southward, thus getting 
clear of the barrier of the unbridged Susquehanna. 

The subject did not at once strike all alike, and at first there 
was not entire unity among them. There are in existence 
petitions, notably from Germany township, which was wholly 
within the proposed new county as originally outlined, remon- 
strating against its creation. Nor was there at first much vigor 
in resistance within the line first proposed. But war, bitter war, 
came when after the first distinct failure the new county project 
developed into a demand to divide York county into two parts 
of about equal size. 

THE EFFORT OF 1 789. 

The first recorded mention of this subject is in the journal 
of the Assembly which was elected in the fall of 178S. Of the 
six members from York county, three were from the territory 
of the proposed new county, viz., Thomas Lilly, David McLel- 
lan, and Thomas Clingan. Mr. Lilly had been in public life 



for the preceding ten years as Assemblyman, Commissioner 
of Attainder, and Justice of the Peace, and he continued for 
six years more as Assemblyman and as Senator. He was of 
the well-known Conewagp family, then a part of Heidelberg 
township. Mr. McLellan was from Hamiltonban township, and 
was serving his third term. Mr. Clingan was also from Ham- 
itonban, and was serving his second term. The case of the 
new county was well prepared, and is embraced in one en- 
try on the Legislative journal. That is the record of presen- 
tation, an the 20th of March, 1789, of petitions from 1,356 in- 
habitants of the western part of the county of York, for the 
creation of a separate county. The record does not state the 
townships which furnished the names, or the proposed line, or 
the name of the county, or the location of the county-seat. 
What is more peculiar, there were no remonstrances. The 
number of taxables within the territory covered by the lines 
first adopted was, in 1788, 3,652. So that the number of peti- 
tioners was considerably less than one-half the number of 
taxables. The non-petitioners can reasonably be classed as 
apathetic, if not hostile. The petitions were referred, as usual, 
to a select committee, which did not make a report till the 
last session of that Assembly, in September, 1789. Then it 
reported in favor of the prayer for the new county ; but recom- 
mended a reference of the question to the next Assembly, on 
the ground that " no bill answering the prayer can, with pro- 
priety and agreeably with the Constitution of this State, be 
passed into a law during the present session, and the bringing 
in a bill, and publishing it, would be expensive and to no pur- 
pose." Under the Constitution of 1776, then existing, the last 
session of an Assembly limited itself to final action on bills 
previously considered, and, except in public exigencies, did not 
take up new business. The delay of the report, therefore, 
operated as a defeat of the prayer. But the new county pro- 
ject had gained the important point of approval by the select 
committee which examined it. There having been no vote or 
other record of individual action, it is impossible now to say 
how the west-end part of the York county delegation was 



divided on the subject ; but the reflected h'ght of subsequent 
action makes it probable that Mr. Lilly was not in favor of the 
plan, and that Mr. McLellan may have been in favor of it. But 
it is certain that Mr. Clingan was in favor of it. The general 
effect of this skirmish was to stir up both friends and foes. 

THE EFFORT OF I79O. 

To the next legislature, elected in 1789, being the last chosen 
under the Constitution of 1776, Messrs. Clingan and Lilly were 
returned, Mr. McLellan was dropped, and William Godfrey, of 
Monaghan (now Latimore) township, chosen in his place. 
Immediately upon the meeting, petitions from 460 inhabitants 
were presented for division, which brought up the number 
of petitioners to 1,816. But 1,1 81 inhabitants remonstrated. 
All these were from the eastern end of the proposed new county 
— from the townships of Berwick, Germany, Heidelberg, Hunt- 
ington, Manheim, Monaghan, Mt. Pleasant and Warrington. 
A considerable number of these petitioners lived within the 
proposed boundaries as indicated at this session. The num- 
ber of remonstrants within this comparatively small area is 
conclusil-eproof of the general want of sympathy within them, 
towards the project. It is not, therefore, remarkable that the 
select committee on the subject reported in March, 1790, ad- 
versely. Their report was not radically hostile, but was against 
the expediency of division at present. The ground taken was 
that however proper division may beat a future day, it does not 
appear that the people have made up their minds so as to be 
reconciled to the plan ; that the present proposed line would 
include a very 'respectable number of inhabitants who are by 
no means reconciled, but who pray not to be separated from 
the old county. They suggest, further, that the adoption of 
hasty and undigested plans for division of counties has caused 
great uneasiness to the people, and has consumed much of the 
time of the General Assembly ; and they recommend that when- 
ever an application is made'to divide a county, there should 
accompany it a draft of lines, selection of a place for the seat of 
justice, and " proofs of approbation," particularly from those 



near and within the hne of the new county. This had not 
been done in the present case. Besides, the figures were un- 
doubedly against the application. 

The New Countians had not made out their case, and the ad- 
verse report of the majority was a reasonable judgment on the 
facts developed. So the York county delegation felt, save one. 
Mr. Thomas Clingan, now in hjs second term, was not disposed 
to submit, and he made an appeal to the Assembly. On the 
23d of March, 1790, the report of the committee pending, he 
mxoved to postpone it that he might make a motion to bring in 
a bill to create the new county. He preceded this by reciting 
in a preamble for justification, that a "respectable number of 
the inhabitants of the western part of York county were under 
difficulties," owing to their great distance from Yorktown, and 
the " crowded situation of the court docquet." That is all. 
This motion made a square issue, and was a legislative defiance 
of the committee. Strange to say, the motion was agreed to 
by the decisive vote of 34 yeas to 25 nays. Stranger to say, 
he stood alone in the York county delegation in its favor; that 
Messrs. Godfrey, Lilly, Schmeiser and Stewart voted against 
the motion, and Mr. Read was absent. It was one out of six, 
on a local question, and the special committee against him. 
The one carried the majority of the House. Two days later, 
the opposition tried to get a two months' postponement for 
publication of the bill in the Carlisle and York papers, and 
were beaten without a division ; and Mr. Clingan's motion to 
bring in the new county bill was agreed to, yeas 32, nays 29 — 
a narrower majority, but still a majority. On the 30th of March, 
1790, the bill was passed by the more decisive vote of yeas 34, 
nays 23. Again, Mr. Clingan, of the York representatives, stood 
alone in its favor, and the bill was, under the Constitution and 
rules, ordered transcribed for a third reading and forthwith pub- 
lication for consideration. It was not pressed to a final vote, be- 
cause under the Constitution of 1776, then operative, which 
vested the whole legislative power in a House of Representa- 
tives, the fifteenth section of the second chapter provided : " To 
the end that Laws, before they are enacted, may be more ma- 



turely considered, and the Inconvenience of hasty Determina- 
tions as much as possible prevented, all Bills of a public Nature 
shall be printed for the Consideration of the People, before 
they are read in General Assembly the last Time for Debate 
and Amendment; and, except on Occasion of sudden Neces- 
sity, shall not be passed into Laws until the next Session of 
Assembly, and for the more perfect Satisfaction of the Public, 
the reasons and Motives for making such Laws shall be fully 
and clearly expressed in the Preambles." The bill was no 
doubt so published, but by the next session the new Constitution 
of 1790 had been adopted with a new form of both executive 
and legislative power, and the old authorities, on September 4, 

1790, laid down their legislative trust and unexpectedly dis- 
solved. One of the items of unfinished business thus deserted 
was the Adams county bill. But for this unexpected circum- 
stance, it is altogether probable that the contest over the new 
county would have been then and there ended, by the prowess 
of one man, and the county created with substantially the same 
limits as those adopted ten years later after a very sharp and 
stubborn struggle. I am unable to say much more of Thomas 
Clingan, though he deserves that a great deal be said of him, 
for this was a brilliant achievement. The Clingan homestead is 
marked on Howell's Map of 1792 as north of the Marshall 
(now Virginia) mill, and this is presumed to be the property 
owned in 1789 by George Clingan's heirs. The farm, I learn 
from J. S. Witherow, Esq., is the Rhea farm, now owned by 
James Donaldson. I have failed to learn anything of his per- 
sonal history except that he was a member of the Lower 
Marsh creek Presbyterian congregation, and in November, 

1 79 1, was one of the signers of the call to Rev. William Pax- 
ton, who for forty-nine years served that people with rare abil- 
ity. But I do not find his name among the dead in their 
grave-yard, nor is it in the published assessment list of Hamil- 
tonban of 1802. He appears to have left the settlement. I 
hope this discussion will revive interest in Thomas Clingan 
and that we may be able to learn more of him and of his 
career. I believe that he moved to Ohio. 



lO 



The line laid down in this bill of March, 1790, began at a dif- 
ferent point from the line of 1800. It began, instead of Trent's 
Gap, at Dill's Gap, where the road from Carlisle strikes the 
Cumberland county line ; ran by a straight course to the 
Conewago creek opposite the mouth of Abbott's run ; thence 
along that run so long as it is the division line between Ber- 
wick and Paradise townships ; thence along the Berwick town- 
ship line till it strikes the line of Heidelberg township; thence 
southward, so as to exclude Hanover-town, to the Maryland 
line; thence to the Franklin county line; thence by Cumber- 
land county line to the place of beginning. Had that line been 
adhered to, Adams county would have had, in addition to the 
present territory, nearly the whole of Franklin township, York 
county, a triangular corner of Washington township, and a 
strip of Heidelberg, and of, probably, Manheim townships.* 
And had not the line of division then demanded been after- 
wards carried many miles east, so as to largely add to the size 
of the proposed new county, there is little doubt that the new 
county would have come many years sooner. For this change, 
I think the rivalries and ambitions growing out of the various 
sites suggested for the county seat are chiefly responsible. 
The line above stated is the first authentic record we have on 
the subject, and is designated, for convenience, the line of 
1790. It is peculiar in not following roads or natural marks, 
and in not giving courses and distances, but it is sufficiently 

distinct. 

These proceedings took place in March, 1790. In August 

of the same year, a petition was presented to the Legislature 
from a number of inhabitants of York county residing on the 
waters of the Yellow Breeches, asking to be annexed to Cum- 
berland county. So old mother York was threatened with 
spoliation as well from the North as the West. 

* In this and other descriptions of lines, I follow the sub-divisions of 
York county, as shown in the Small-Wagner Map of York and Adams 
counties, published in 1821. 



1 1 

THE FIRST COUNTY SITE SUGGESTION. 

While the bill of 1790 failed of final enactment, a resolu- 
tion was offered naming James Cunningham, of Lancaster 
county, Jonathan Hoge, of Cumberland, and James Johnston, 
of Franklin, surveyors, to be Commissioners to view and 
examine the situation of the several places proposed for the 
seat of justice, and make report to the Assembly at its next 
session of such place as they might judge most suitable and 
proper for that purpose. In Day's Historical Collections 
of Pennsylvania, page 57, it is stated that they selected 
"a tract of 125 acres belonging to Garret Van Arsdalen, 
in Straban township, between the two roads leading from 
Hunter's and Gettystown to the brick house, including part of 
each road to Swift's run." And, confirmatory of this, I have 
in original manuscript the offer of Garret Van Arsdalen, in 
1793, of this property for this same purpose — in which paper 
he states that " it was formicrly appointed to be the seat of 
justice by Messrs. Cunningham, Hoge and Johnston." But 
the resolution for the appointment of these gentlemen for this 
purpose is shown by the journal to have been defeated, not 
adopted; the journal of the subsequent session does not show 
the making of any report by them; and the statutes of 1789 
and 1790 do not show the passage of any act on the subject. 
From all which I infer that if these surveyors acted at all, they 
did so on private employment to run lines, and that if they 
gave expression to the preference indicated, it was a personal 
and not an official act. One can readily understand how such 
a judgment could, in course of time, ripen into a popular tra- 
dition that it Vv'as an official act. But, however, this may be, 
there is no doubt that by 1790, the question of the county site 
assumed prominence and became closely bound with the. 
fortunes of the new county project. 

I have in possession an interesting paper, being a bond 
which was prepared for execution, but was not executed. It is 
dated May 21, 1790. It was prepared, apparently, to be pre- 
sented to the three Commissioners, "whose province is to fix 
the seat of Justice," but it was not executed. It recites that 



12 

influenced by the pleasant situation and conveniences of 
Gettysburgh, the fertih'ty of its neighborhood and centrahty 
of its situation, they " beg leave to offer as an additional 
consideration in its behalf the following subscription." It 
promised to pay to the trustees appointed for taking obliga- 
tions of performance for the proposals made in behalf of the 
county, viz.. Col. Moses McClean, William Gilliland, Esq., and 
Matthew Dill, Esq., or any other trustees that may hereafter 
be by law appointed for erecting the public buildings within the 
intended new county, the several sums annexed, payable in 
three equal annual instalments; conditioned, however, upon 
Gettysburg being fixed as the seat of Justice. This bond was 
not signed, but its recitals indicate that the bill of 1790 pro- 
vided the same sort of machinery for erecting the public build- 
ings — trustees to "take obligations of performance for the pro- 
posals made for erecting the buildings " — which is found in 
the act of 1800, less the "ground rents" feature. 

THE EFFORT OF 1 79 1. 

In the session of 1791, being the first legislature composed 
of a Senate and House of Representatives, the new county party 
met its first distinct defeat. The opposition looked aiter the del- 
egation from York county. Thomas Clingan was not re-elected, 
most probably in reward for his remarkable performance in 
the previous Assembly. William Godfrey was also dropped, 
and Philip Gardner, of Hellam, was put in his place. Wil- 
liam McPherson, then of Cumberland township, a new member, 
was the only known new county man on it. The delegation was 
made up against division. There was no opposition ticket. 
The extreme east of York county had three; the extreme west 
had one ; the other two were from within the proposed terri- 
tory, but against division. On this plan the delegation was 
constituted except in 1795 and 1796, when the new county pro- 
ject was not broached, and in 1799, when the extreme west 
secured two representatives, by which time division had become 
inevitable. The former petitions for division were again pre- 
sented, as were the remonstrances. But the latter were re- 



13 

enforced by additional petitions from Heidelberg and Warring- 
ton. Besides the previous lack of unity among the population 
within the line, another element of weakness came to the sur- 
face in January, 1791, and again in April, 1791, when certain 
inhabitants of Monaghan and Newberry townships prayed to 
be annexed to Cumberland county. They were nearer to Car- 
lisle than to York, and sought escape from these entanglements 
in annexation to Cumberland. The Select Committee of the 
House of Representatives examined the papers relating to the 
new county, and reported adversely to the petitions for di- 
vision. They "were clearly of opinion that the minds of a very 
respectable number of people who live in the neighborhood of 
the proposed line are by no means reconciled to the idea of 
being separated from the old county. They are, therefore, in- 
duced to believe that the division would be improper." This 
report was affirmed February 17, 1791, by the House, by a 
vote of 34 to 27. The York delegation was divided as follovv's: 
Messrs. Gardner, Tyson, Stewart and Lilly, in the affirmative; 
Messrs. Read and McPherson, in the negative. Mr. Read was 
from Chanceford township, and, no doubt, a Scotch-Irish Pres- 
byterian. 

This vote is interesting as showing whence the opposition 
then came. Of the 34 negative votes, the counties east of 
York, with York itself, threw 31, leaving but three from the 
counties north and west. The old counties had evidently 
massed against the disturbance of power which might come 
from making new ones. 

It is worthy of note that the two members of that House 
who secured the ultimate distinction of election to the U. S. 
Senate, Albert Gallatin and Samuel Maclay, both voted for di- 
vision. 

The size of the negative vote indicates the existence of a 
large interest for division. It could have easily become a ma- 
jority but for the strong presence of an adverse local delega- 
tion. 

Those who suppose that this contest was carried on with 
unbroken courtesy, with perfect frankness, in good temper. 



14 

and on principles unknown to the human nature of this day 
will find proof of their error in such entries on the 'House 
Journal as these : 

1 79 1, February 15 — Petitions presented from a number of 
the inhabitants of Berwick, Germany, Mt, Pleasant, and Read- 
ing, for a new county, and the several depositions accompany- 
ing the same were read. 

Petitions from a number of the inhabitants of Berwick town- 
ship, testifying that they were prevailed upon, through ground- 
less information, to petition for a division, but, being better 
informed, pray that their prayer be not granted, and a number 
of depositions were read. 

The petition of Andrew Mcllwain, Samuel Smith and Matt- 
hew Duncan, of Berwick township, and within the line of new 
proposed division, stating certain proceedings had by persons 
opposed to division, praying that no measures be adopted by 
the Legislature injurious to said division until they be heard. 

These hints are enough to make us realize that our fore- 
fathers were just as human as are their descendants, and that 
the marks of the millenial period were not more distinct than 
they are now. But, unfortunately, these precious documents 
with the details are lost. 

THE EFFORT OF 1 792. 

In the fall of 1791 there was a significant change made in 
the delegation. Mr. Read, who led the poll in 1790, paid the 
penalty of his vote for division, and was dropped by the reg- 
ular Convention, which in those days was called by the County 
Commissioners. One of his neighbors, Alexander Turner, of 
Chanceford, was nominated in his place. Mr. Thomas Thorn- 
burg, of Monaghan, was substituted for Philip Gardner. The 
Thornburgs lived in Cumberland county as early as 1767, and 
in December, 1782, Thomas and Joseph, with Michael Ege, 
bought the Pine Grove Iron Works. On selling his interest 
there, some years later, Thomas moved to the upper part of 
York county. He died in 1807. He, Lilly and McPherson, 
were the three on the regular ticket from the West End, but 



15 

they were divided on the new county question. To this ticket 
an opposition was brought out. In the York Herald, of 
October i, 1791, Wm. Mitchell, Wm. McClean "and others," 
announced that their ticket would be more agreeable to some 
of the districts, and to the public in general, than the one that 
has been introduced. It is not easy to guess the basis on 
which the opposition rested, or whether it was rather personal 
than political. Apparently it was the former, though one 
motive may have been resentment at the dropping of Gardner 
and taking up of Thornburg, as William Mitchell, a neighbor 
of Thornburg, signed the endorsement of the opposition ticket, 
and another motive resentment at the dropping of Joseph Read. 
Of Mr. Mitchell I, know nothing except that he was one of the 
signers to the call of Rev. Samuel Waugh as Presbyterian 
minister in that region in 1791, and was probably an ancestor 
of the James S. Mitchell who represented the York Congres- 
sional district from 1821 to 1827. This movement did not 
prove to be a brilliant affair. John Stewart was on both 
tickets. As his vote was about 350 votes greater than the 
average of his colleagues, it is clear that this number repre- 
sented the strength of the Opposition. But the Opposition 
ticket, whatever it represented, was strong in personal char- 
acter. Matthew Dill, of Monaghan, Ebenezer Finley, of Cum- 
berland, John Harbaugh, of Manchester, Joseph Read, of 
Chanceford, who hafl been dropped, and Conrad Sherman, of 
Manheim, were well known names. Of these, Mr. Dill was 
the most widely known. John Harbaugh, the fourth son of 
Yost Harbaugh, senior, then had a flouring mill near York, 
and was a man of prominence up to his death, in 1803, in his 
68th year. Finley and Sherman were, two years later, again 
"stump" candidates, but with like unsuccess, and neither of 
them ever got to the Legislature. Finley lived in Gettysburg 
as early as 1795, when his name appears to a petition for 
the establishment of a post-office. 

In the next month after the election, steps were taken to 
push the division project, but upon a more aggressive plan. 
Hitherto, th^ new county claimed about three-eighths of the 



i6 

territory; now it claimed about two-sixteenths more, and cov- 
ered Hanover. We have no certain knowledge of the influ- 
ences which effected this change of policy; but there is every 
reason to believe that the county seat question was largely re- 
sponsible for it. The farther east the division line could be 
thrown, the stronger would be the claim of the more eastern 
points for the county seat in rivalry of Gettysburg, which was 
about the center of the county as made by the line of 1790. 
Something may have also been conceded to the theory that as 
this was largely a struggle for territory, there was wisdom in 
claiming more than was expected, in the hope by compromise 
of thereby getting what they were really willing to take. I 
have known such theories prevail in modern deals. It is cer- 
tain that in the development of the new policy, Hunterstown 
came to the front. Gettysburg apparently lagged in the rear. 
The York Herald of November 23, 1791, has a call for a meet- 
ing of the Western-Enders, in their different townships and 
parts of townships, to be held December 10, 1791, to choose 
two deputies from each to a convention on December 13, 1791, 
in Hunterstown, "for the purpose of concerting such measures 
as they may think proper to carry into effect a division of said 
county." It is added that those townships and parts of town- 
ships that do not elect persons to represent them at the meet- 
ing on December 13, "will be supposed as giving their Assent 
to any Measures that will be adopted by those that meet." 
The neat thing about this notice is the warning that all absen- 
tee districts will be held as approving whatever may be done. 
I am not aware that modern politics, of whose abuses it is 
fashionable to say so much, furnish a patter illustration of a 
disposition to grasp every advantage in sight. 

The primaries were held, and the meeting took place De- 
cember 13, 1 79 1. The York //£7'(^/<:/ of December 28th advises 
us of the proceedings. Colonel William Walker was called to 
the chair; William McGrew was chosen clerk. On the ques- 
tion. Is a division of York county necessary? it was unani- 
mously carried in the affirmative ; and that the line of said 
division should commence at the mouth of Dogwood Run, 



17 

thence in a direct line to Christian Closse's mill, thence to 
Eichelberger's tavern, on the road leading from Hanover to 
York Town, thence in a south direction to the Maryland line, 
etc. This meeting called another primary for January 7, 1792, 
to elect two persons from each township as deputies to a con- 
vention in Hunter's Town, on January 10, 1792, "in order to 
concert such measures as they may think necessary to carry 
into effect a division of said county." If this last convention 
was ever held, there is no record of its action ; and it probably 
was not held. 

This new line, which I have named the line of 1792, be- 
cause then first formally presented, was a somewhat radical 
measure. Tested by the Small and Wagner map of 1821, the 
Closse mill, originally Updegraffs, will be found to be the 
Emich mill, and the Eichelberger's of 1792 is still the Eichel- 
berger's of 1 82 1. Had this line prevailed, all of the present 
Franklin township, and half of Carroll, would have fallen to 
Adams, and a triangle from Monaghan, about one-half of 
Washington township, one-fifth of Paradise, and more than 
half of Heidelberg and Manheim townships, including " Han- 
over Town." But the journals of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives fail to show that any petitions were prepared 
as a result of this movement, which appears to have fallen flat. 
An influence, not now clearly apparent, suppressed the leaders 
of the Hunterstown meeting: for there was nothing done or 
proposed in the Legislature during the winter of i79i-'92. 
The probable explanation is that the line was too near the old 
line to satisfy the demand for an equal division of the territory, 
and too close to the site of Hunterstown to justify a hope of 
its selection as the county seat. In other words, the move- 
ment was neither cold nor hot, and it failed. 

THE EFFORT OF 1 793. 

The same criticism cannot be made of the movement of 
1793. It was a hot one, and on an aggressive line. The elec- 
tion of 1792 made no important change in the York couhty 
delegation. Philip Gardner, dropped in 1791, was restored 



and remained six years. After the election, new petitions were 
circulated through all the townships, and were signed by 1,569 
inhabitants. The main representation in them was that they 
" labour under Great Inconvenience by Reason of the Seat of 
Justice being so Remote as the Town of York is nearly 50 
miles distant from the Western Extream of the county. In 
addition to this there is now on the docket as many actions as 
will with the Common management last near seven years, ex- 
clusive of any new ones which may commense in futor. We 
must therefore be subjected to serve as Jury men, Witnesses, 
etc., etc., on all occations when Required by Law Conse- 
quently to the Extraordinary Expense acruing by being so 
distant while we Remain Connected with the lower part of the 
County. We presume that when suits in Law increas in num- 
ber to such a Degree as to ocation a procrastination of Justis 
that it amounts near to a Denial of Justice. And your Pe- 
titioners see no Rational method of removing those Evils but 
by laying the matter before your Honorable House and ob- 
taining a Division of the County." 

They call for a dividing line drawn " from the mouth of 
Dogwood Run, in Monaghan township, running straight 
course to George Ruddy's tavern, on the Great Road, from 
thence straight line to Bollingar's mill," and thence a due 
south course to the Maryland line, etc. They also ask that the 
place for the seat of Justice be fixed in the Bill. They add : 
"As we hope the Benefit, Ease and Happiness of your Peti- 
tioners and all your Constituents are the Governing Principle 
of your Honorable House, your Petitioners look up with 
Confidence and hope that your Honors will grant the prayer 
of so Reasonable a Petition." 

I have, of these petitions of December, 1792, those for Cum- 
berland township, 53 names; Hamiltonban, 225; Mount Joy, 
116; Mount Pleasant, 147; Reading, 66; Straban, 195, and 
Tyrone, 56. In addition, there were from Berwick, 165; from 
Cumberland, 74 more; Franklin, 125; Germany, 71; Heidel- 
berg, 4; Menallen, ill; Monaghan, 71 ; Paradise, 63. 

These petitions demanded for the new county the largest 



19 

area claimed during the whole controversy. It illustrates the 
exceeding modesty of our ancestors to find them set it forth in 
terms as " so reasonable," and as justified by proper consider- 
ation for the benefit, ease and happiness of all the constit- 
uents of their legislators. The Ruddy tavern is the King 
tavern in Paradise township, and the Bollinger mill is the Bol- 
linger mill in Heidelberg township, of the map of 1821. By 
this line, Adams would have had, in addition to present terri- 
tory, all of Franklin and a triangle of Monaghan, nearly all of 
Washington, over one-third of Paradise, all of Heidelberg, and 
nearly all of Manheim — as these districts are laid down in the 
map of 1 82 1. The county of York would have been divided 
into two nearly equal parts. This was the line of 1792-3. 

These petitions, as I learn from a letter of William Reed, 
dated "Carrol's Tract," 7th January, 1793. to William McPher- 
son, Esq., then a member of the Legislature at Philadelphia, 
were agreed upon at a meeting held at William Bailey's [in 
Mount Pleasant township], that the meeting was "pretty gen- 
eral," and that " we were also very unanimous." The letter 
adds: 

"The Petitions are now going about, and lam informed 
they are approven of and subscribed by the people without ex- 
ception. There is a meeting appointed at Mr. Bailey's, the 
22d of this inst., when the Petitions are all to be brought in, 
and I think we shall be able after that time to judge whether 
we shall have a Division or no. I shall let you know our fur- 
ther proceedings if an opportunity offers." 

There was a subsequent meeting at John Murphy's on the 
13th of February, 1793, which "was expected to be the last 
about the Division, but the meeting was a Partial one on ac- 
count of the inclemency of the weather, and nothing was 
done. Another was appointed for Friday of the next week 
for the last, after which the petitions may be expected imme- 
diately."* 

William Bailey, who died in 1806, was assessed in 1800 at 

* Unpublished letter of Alexander Russell, Esq., to William McPher- 
son, Esq. 



20 

;$3.028. His house is, I think, the old stone on the north 
side of the turnpike immediately east of Brush Run, John 
Murphy was, and for many years continued to be, an active 
citizen. He built several of the old stone bridges, and built 
sections of the York and other turnpikes. His farm, now the 
Heltzell property, west of New Oxford, was warranted June 
14, 1763, to John Hamilton. His house was, probably, the first 
brick built in Adams county. It stood till 1865, when Mr. 
Heltzell put in its place the present structure. 

Alexander Irvine writes from Gettysburgh, January 8, 1793, 
"that the petitions have been in circulation, and the people in 
this place have complied with them, " in' order to have the pe- 
titions more numerious," knowing well that " nothing they had 
in their power could have any affect on your Honorable Body 
in fixing that matter as you thought most proper." But he adds 
the expressive sentence: " We think the Line is too low down." 

Capt. Alexander Cobean, writing to William McPherson, 
Esq., from Marsh Creek, March 17, 1793, says that "the divi- 
sion of the county, and fixing the Seat of Justice, seems now to 
take up the attention of most people in our part of this county. 
Mr. Dunwoody can inform you of the particular situation of the 
business. I hope if the matter is to be decided upon at this 
time, you will find sufficient reason to use your influence in 
favor of Gettysburgh for the Seat of Justice." 

The journal of the House of Representatives shows that on 
March 5, 1793, a letter from Moses McClean, a very conspic- 
uous citizen of the county, residing in Carroll's Delight, was 
read on the subject of the division of York county. The journal 
gives no hint of its contents. But I happen to have the orig- 
inal of the letter of transmittal. It is appended, as indicating, 
though vaguely, his attitude, which I interpret to have been 
a decided preference for the pending line, whatever its effect 
upon the selection of the county seat. This Mr. McClean 
afterwards moved to Ohio, where he died : 

Carroll's Delight. 
Dear Sir: I expect the Petitions for the Division of York 
County will come to hand against this reaches you. I have 



21 

enclosed a letter to the Speaker of the house of Representa- 
tives containing a few remarks which I think may be of Use 
on the Subject, which I request you will will give him after 
the Petitions are Read — I have left it unsealed that you may 
see the Contents; which, after reading, please seal before you 
deliver — being much hurried with business, I shall only wish 
you to use every honorable method to obtain as beneficial a 
Division of York County as possible ; and that whatever may 
be your private attachments you will consider yourself in this 
case as the Guardian of the Rights of those you Represent and 
that you are not at liberty in point of honour so far as your in- 
terest in the House will carry, to sacrifice the Interests of the 
Inhabitants generally to gratify others however designing — In 
hopes this will be the case I take the Liberty to subscribe my- 
self Your sincere friend and 

Humble Servant, 

5th February, 1793 Moses McClean. 

William McPherson, Esq. 

These petitions were sent to Philadelphia in March by the 
hands of John Potter, and were presented in the House March 
5, 1793, by Mr. McPherson, who, in a letter to Alexander 
Russell, Esq., dated Philadelphia, March 5, 1793, says that he 
has "little hopes of the Business succeeding this session." He 
finds that a great many in the proposed line of division have 
not come forward with their names. Besides, the session was 
then far advanced. He says one of the objections made by 
members is that an enumeration of the population has not been 
taken; but, he adds, if they had not this reason to give, they 
would have some other. He adds, further, that he is con- 
vinced " the line was extended too low down," and thinks 
while that is to be the line, " we will never be able to carry a 
Division." This movement evidently did not suit him. 

Undoubtedly the decided majority of these Eastern town- 
ships were hostile to this line. None petitioned for it from 
Manheim, Paradise or Warrington; only four from Heidel- 
berg, of whom three were the three Owingses,* Charles, Robert 
and William, who finally fell within our county; while 140 in- 

*They lived on a 500-acre tract bordering on Slagle's Run and Little 
Conewago — now three farms occupied by the Sneeringers. 



22 

habitants of Manheim vehemently protested against it. All 
these names are written in German except ten. On the other 
hand, the sentiment of Monaghan was, by the power of geo- 
graphical reasons, shown to be favorable. Seventy-one signers, 
including the Dills, Godfrey, Leas, Coulson, and all the prom- 
ient men of the township, leave no doubt on this point. Ger- 
many township had, by this time, partially surrendered oppo- 
sition. Seventy-one endorsed the new line, embracing such 
names as the McSherrys, Sneeringers, Mcllhennys, Winrotts 
and Littles. Seventy-two, all German but ten, asked to be ex- 
cluded from the lines of the new county, if formed. 

TWO OFFERS OF LAND FOR THE COUNTY SEAT. 

As a most interesting part of this story, are appended two 
valuable papers of this year, touching the location of the 
County Seat. They were found in the papers of the late Wil- 
liam McPherson. Gettysburg appears to have then made no 
offer: 

To Messrs. Lilie, Thornburgh and McPherson, Esqrs., Repre- 
sentatives of the Honourable House of Assembly . . .State 
of Pennsylvania. 

I the subscriber being one of your Humble Pettioners : 
Have ben informed that sundry persons within the new pro- 
posed Division of York County will send you the terms on 
which they will sell their land to the Publick — for the seat of 
justice in case the Honorable Houses will be so generous as 
to grant us a Division of the County. 

I also use the freedom to propose the land that was formerly 
appointed to be the seat of justice by Messrs. Cuningham Hogg 
and Johnston, Esqrs., on the following terms, viz : at five pounds 
per acre, and for the true performance of the above proposals 
I bind myself my heirs exurs and administrators each and 
either of them jointly and severally and firmly by these pres- 
ents in the sum of one thousand pounds, and do acknowledge 
myself bound by the above obligation untill the first Day of 
October next ensuing the Date and no longer Given Under 
my hand and Seal this 26th Day of February 1793 

Garret Van Arsdalen. [seal.] 
Signed and Sealed 

In Presents of 
David Potter, senr. 



23 

To the Honorable the Representatives of the Freemen of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in General Assembly met. 

Whereas the Subscriber being possessed of a Tract of Land 
Containing Two Hundred Acres, Situate on the West Side 
of Little Conowago Creek in Mount Pleasant Township York \ 
County, thro' which the Public Road passes which leads from 
the City of Philadelphia and Baltimore to the Western Coun- 
tries, on which are several good springs of fresh Water, and 
abounds with a Sufficient quantity of Freestone, it is also sit- 
uated near the Center of the proposed Division of York County, 
and within a Small distance of several Merchant and other 
Mills — And Whereas a Considerable Number of the Inhabi- 
tants of the Western part of York County are of the Opinion, 
that the above described Premises would be a Suitable and 
Convenient Situation for the Seat of Justice in Case the County 
should be divided. 

The Subscriber therefore Humbly Proposes to offer the 
whole of the above described Premises for the Public Use at 
the Rate of Five Pounds ^ acre, for the purpose of Erecting a 
County Town and Court House thereon. In case the Honor- 
able Legislature should see fit [his Dwelling House, Barn and 
Stables with half an Acre of Land adjoining only excepted] 

Feby. 25th, 1793. William Sturgeon. 

William Sturgeon appears on the assessment of Mount 
Pleasant township in 1800, as owning a hotel. His property 
was assessed at $1,300. About this date, he built the " Indian 
Queen Hotel," in New Oxford, and in 1801 it was designated 
as a place for holding elections. He was accidentally killed in 
1822. He was a son of Henry Sturgeon, and a nephew of the 
late Plon. Daniel Sturgeon, U. S. Senator from 1839 to 185 i. 

The Opposition proved effective. The bill was smothered 
in Committee, and nothing was done. 

THE EFFORT OF 1 794- 

The advanced step taken in i792-'3 had the effect of divid- 
ing at home the friends of the new county movement, which 
was apparently being sacrificed in the struggle over the County 
Seat. On the 2d of October, 1793, the deputies of the several 
districts met at York and nominated a ticket for the General 
Assembly. This ticket contained all the old members, except 



24 

Mr. Thornburg, for whom Thomas Campbell, his neighbor, 
was substituted. But the same number of the York Herald, 
which announced this ticket, announced another ticket as 
made "at the request of a number of gentlemen," what we 
would call a bolting or "stump" ticket. It contained but 
one name which was on the nominated ticket — Mr. Campbell, 
who was the new name, and had no record on the New County 
question. Evidently, the dissatisfaction which the new ticket 
expressed was due, in some form, to this question. The new 
names were William Ross, of Warrington ; Henry Tyson, of 
Windsor; Ebenezer Finley, of Cumberland; Conrad Sherman, 
of Manheim ; and James Kelly, of York. The ticket was 
shrewdly selected. The important localities were reached by 
men of local strength. Finley was pitted against McPherson, 
Sherman against Lilly, Ross against Gardner, Tyson against 
Turner, Kelly against Stewart. The result was curious. Camp- 
bell, on both tickets, had 1908 votes — showing a small poll in 
the county. Next to him were Gardner and Turner, Eastern- 
Enders, with 1,331 and 1,279 respectively. Lilly, with a good 
deal of a record on the New County question, and always 
against it, fell to 1,131. And McPherson, with as much of 
a record on the New County question, and alwaj's for it, 
fell to 986 votes, and was beaten by James Kelly by 91 votes. 
Finley, his local competitor, had 629 votes, and McPherson 
was 343 votes behind his highest colleague. Finley's candi- 
dacy hurt McPherson, but it was Hunterstown which gave 
him the fatal blow. Fearing that the independent movement 
would not be sufficient to ensure his defeat, 207 voters "cut" 
him and cast ballots for William Gilliland, of Straban, who was 
not a candidate, and not on either ticket, but was used as a 
means of punishing Gettysburg and its representative, because 
he regarded the Dogwood Run line an impossible line. The 
other independent candidates received 726, 709, and 476 votes 
respectively. The general result of this scrimmage was the 
election to the Legislature of James Kelly, a pronounced 
enemy of the New County, and the unanimous adoption by 
that House of Representatives of a report made against the 



25 

whole project. Those voters who were attracted to the inde- 
pendent ticket, thereby at once defeated their rivals and them- 
selves. 

The champion of Gettysburg having been turned down at 
the polls, a decided step was taken against it in the ensuing 
session. The York county delegation was strong in character 
and solid in opposition to the New County. John Stewart, 
serving his fifth term, was in later years Associate Judge and 
a Representative in Congress. Thomas Lilly was a veteran 
in local public life. And James Kelly, a lawyer of three years' 
standing, sent to Philadelphia for five sessions to throttle this 
project, then received the momentum which sent him subse- 
quently to Congress. He was a good lawyer, and twenty-one 
years after this was the preceptor in the law of Thaddeus 
Stevens, when teacher of a school in York. In the spring ot 
1794, in the Legislature, the subject was renewed. Former 
petitions were again presented ; new petitions to the same end, 
for the same line were added, with this difference, that the old 
ones asked the Legislature to fix the county seat in the bill, 
but expressed no preference, while the new petitions expressed 
a preference, and asked the Legislature to ratify it. That pre- 
ference was for " William Sturgeon's land in Mount Pleasant 
township, on the west side of Little Conewago, opposite the 
Bridge, as has been settled by Deputies from the included 
townships." Gettysburg was to be passed by. The whole 
paper is as follows : 

To the Hon'ble the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

Freeme?i of the Coimnon-zvealth of Peniisylvania in General 

Assembly met: 

Your Humble Petitioners, Deputies appointed for the sev- 
eral Townships and parts of Townships west of the Line pro- 
posed as the Division Line of York County : Beg leave to 
Represent to your Honors: 

That the Inhabitants of the said proposed Division have 
laid before the former House of Assembly divers Petitions 
setting forth the great Inconveniences they laboured under 
respecting the Remoteness of the present Seat of Justice, 
&c., as set forth & will appear by their Petitions now on the 
files of the House. 



26 

Your Petitioners therefore Pray that your Honors will 
please to grant the Prayer of their Petitioners By Enacting 
a Law for Erecting the Western end of York County into a 
separate County agreeable to the Dividing Line described 
in said Petitions; fixing the seat of Justice in said Bill on 
Wm. Sturgeon's Land in Mount Pleasant Township, on the 
West side of Little Conewago, opposite the Bridge, as has 
been settled by Deputies from the included Townships ; and 
your Petitioners in behalf of themselves and their Constituents 
as in duty bound will ever Pray. 

Moses McClean, William Bailey, 

James Cooper, John Potter, 

Wm. Walker, Frederick Bager (Ger.), 

Peter Ferree, Jno. Agnew, 

David Simpson, Wm. McClean, 

Henry Hull, David Dunwooday, 

Anthony Achinbach, William Hafer (Ger.), 

John Henderson, Briegwer^ 

Wm. Gilliland, Peter or WGer.), 

And'w Thompson, Criogrow j 

William Wierman, Marttin Binder, 

Isaac Deardorff, Andrew Bower. 

John Stouffer, 

29th January, 1794. 

We, the Deputies appointed at the Meeting of the Inhabi- 
tants of Mountjoy Township on the 25th January last, in the 
proposed Division of York County, To meet the deputies from 
other Townships in said Division, at the House of John Mur- 
phy, in Mount Pleasant Township on the 29th January last, Did 
not attend on that day at said Murphy's, on account of the In- 
clemency of the Weather, apprehending there would not be a 
General Meeting — But finding by the minutes of that meeting 
there was a Deputation from thirteen Townships — and that 
they determined the place for the Seat of Justice to be on Wm. 
Sturgion's Farm on the west side of the Connewagoe Bridge 
in Mountpleasant Township — 

We therefore hereby certify. That on Behalf of ourselves 
and our Constituents, we fully approve of the Proceedings of 
the deputies met at Jno. Murphy's, on the 29th January affore- 
said and fully agree to the place fixed upon for the Seat of Jus- 
tice, Agreeable to the Prayer of the within Petition. In witness 
whereof we have hereunto set our hand this 2nd February, 
1794. Jno. Weims, 

Chas. Wilson. 



27 

I have been able to locate, in their respective townships, or 
parts of townships, all of this Committee, except one whose 
name, written obscurely in German, is not certainly known. 
But it is noteworthy that Menallen, which was within all the 
proposed lines, that Germany, which was within all the lines 
for which numerous petitions were presented, and that Heidel- 
berg, Manheim, Monaghan and Paradise, in which was one- 
fifth of the population of the York of i8oo after division, and 
over whose territory this particular controversy was taking 
place in 1794, had no part or lot in this Convention. Of those 
represented, Messrs. Agnew and William McClean were from 
Hamiltonban; Moses McClean, from Franklin; Deardorff,' 
Thompson and Wierman, from Huntingdon; Bailey and 
Potter, from Mount Pleasant; Weims and Wilson, from Mount 
Joy ; Gilliland and Simpson, from Straban ; Hull and Achinbach, 
from Reading; Ferreeand Walker, from Tyrone; Eager, Hafer 
and Henderson, from Berwick; Cooper and Dunwooday, from 
Cumberland ; and Binder and Bower, from Warrington. The 
movement has the appearance of strength much more than 
the meeting at Hunterstown three years before. The peti- 
tioning deputies were prominent men, but their cause lacked 
the necessary elements of cohesion. It does not bear inspec- 
tion. It is open to two palpable criticisms. One is, their line, 
as claimed, was against the probabilities of success. It would 
have made about an equal division of territory, and would have 
left York a long, straggling, unshapely county. The territory 
on the Cumberland line would have been reduced from the 
present seventeen miles to nine and one-half York county 
would have lost on its present western line an average of four 
and a half miles more than by the existing division. And it 
would have lost a large population in these townships who, by 
reason of distance, language, and associations, were unwilling 
to be taken from it. The claim by Adams for this territory 
was unreasonable, and did not consist with its general argu- 
ment. The other criticism is, that with the line so established, 
the county seat asked for was at one end of the territory. 
Sturgeon's was but nine miles from the eastern boundary, 



28 

while it was twenty miles from the western boundary. And 
on the north and south-line it was nine and three-quarter miles 
to one extreme, and eighteen and three-quarter miles to the 
other. The chief argument for the new county was the great 
distance from the Courts and the expense of reaching them. 
How was this argument maintained by so placing the county 
seat as that, for all time, two-thirds of the territory would be 
remote from, and only one-third convenient to, the seat of the 
Courts? 

The petition of the Deputies, I find on examination, was pre- 
pared in advance of action. A blank was left for the name of 
the county-site to be selected. One full line was left for the 
description. But it took two lines to write the description 
of the Sturgeon place. From this I infer that the person 
who prepared the papers in advance, and who presumably 
was among the most active in the movement, was not pre- 
pared for the result whioh was reached. I think the paper is 
in the hand-writing of Col. Moses McClean, who took a deep 
interest in the whole subject, and who was understood, as I 
learn from contemporary letters, not to be in sympathy with 
the movement in favor of Gettysburg, but who I think did not 
prefer the Sturgeon site, though he acquiesced in it. 

Up to this date, the petitions had been for the new county 
without recommendation of a site for the seat of justice. As 
agitation grew, we can readily understand why it was deemed 
wise to try to settle upon a site. The partisans of the extreme 
eastern line were badly divided on this point. We are told, 
in a private letter, that there were ten different interests. We 
know on positive evidence that there were seven named 
to the Legislature of the State. The friends of the new line 
no doubt reasoned that there was necessity for union on this 
point. If their bill should be passed with the site settled, the 
whole plan would be at once secured. If the bill should 
be passed with the site unsettled, this great prize might fall 
from their grasp. Hence, this Convention at Murphy's, It 
had its origin in prudent foresight. The sites named in the 
Legislature, besides Gettysburg, were: Van Arsdalen's, within 



29 

one mile of Hugh King's farm, "the Low Dutch Meeting 
House near the forks of the road," Hunterstown, John Mur- 
phy's farm, and Wilham Sturgeon's.* Oxford was also con- 
sidered, and Hanover certainly in 1797. This diversity of in- 
terest was, of course, a weakness, which it was the business of 
this Convention of Deputies to remove. It met on the 29th 
of January, 1794, at the house of John Murphy, a famous point 
in that day, between Brush creek and Swift's Run, on the 
great road east and west, and at the point of junction of the 
Hunterstown with the York road. 

The opposition in the eastern townships were not conciliated 
by the prospect of having the county seat near their door. 
Bad blood was up; and again Germany, Hanover, Heidelberg, 
Manheim and Paradise protested, re-enforced by other inhabi- 
tants of Berwick, Cumberland, Franklin, Germany, Hamilton- 
ban, Mt. Joy, Reading and Straban. The townships around 
and east of Hanover furnished 996 new remonstrants at this 
session. Others of Berwick, Paradise and Reading repelled 
the effort to drag them from the old county and indignantly 
replied that if Cumberland, Franklin and Hamiltonban con- 
sider themselves aggrieved by being too far from the seat of 
justice they have the right to ask to be annexed to Franklin 
county. • In this mixed condition of things, it was but natural 
that the Committee should report, as it did, that from the di- 
versity of sentiments prevailing among the inhabitants of the 
part proposed to be erected into the new county, and as the 
distance, from the county seat, of the most remote parts, is not 

* The Van Arsdalen farm was at an early day Laurence Montfort's, 
now is Henry Osborn's, and in the Adams County Atlas of 1872 was L. 
Osborn's. The " Low Dutch Meeting House property" is owned by 
Mrs. Catharine Miller, a part of whose brick dwelling stands on the old 
property. John Murphy's farm was owned and for many years occupied 
by Nicholas HeUzel. William Sturgeon's farm was warranted by Henry 
Sturgeon in 1767, in 1823 wert into the hands of Rev. John Melsheimer, 
was occupied in 1872 by C. Smith, and now by Spangler Hetrich. The 
Hugh King farm, within one mile of which the county site was to be, is 
in Tyrone township, was the Bucher and Bear property of the Atlas of 
1872, and is now occupied by Joseph Long. 



greater than in many of the other counties of the State, they 
were of opinion that a division of the county was not now ad- 
visable. This report was adopted on the 15th of April, 1794, 
unanimously, and the case came to an end. The demonstra- 
tion of 1794 on the new line was a signal failure. 

I have said, that we know with certainty little of this 
Convention of Deputies. Besides the paper sent to the Legis- 
lature, I know of no facts respecting it, except such as 
are contained in two unpublished manuscripts in my pos- 
session, from Germany and Mountjoy. The former is 
signed by twenty-six persons, of whom Jacob Sell, Henry 
Buecker, John Stealy, Mathias Riffle, jr., John Gait, 
George Kuntz, sr., Frederick Keefer, Jacob King, jr., 
Dennis Collins, and Adam Wintrode are the only ones 
written in English. They set forth that although Germany 
township is wholly within the proposed division and contains 
192 taxables, they had no notice to meet to choose delegates, 
and had no delegates at such meeting. They represent that 
matters have not been carried on " with such respect to the 
Convenience of the Inhabitants Concerned, or with as Just or 
Equitable a Representation as a matter of such Importance 
would require, as the meetings of some others of the town- 
ships were very small, and Little or no notice thereof given, 
and the Delegates nominated perhaps by six or seven persons 
in a township, and that some of the Delegates so chosen Con- 
curred without ever being present at the meeting at all or 
exercising their own Judgments." This is a hit at the Mount- 
joy delegates, who did not attend, but ratified the action. 

They further state that " upon the whole matters seems to 
have been Carried on by party and personal Influence perhaps 
for sinister ends, for if we are rightly Informed the place so des- 
ignated is neither Elegant in point of Situation nor Convenience, 
as materials for Building in particular must be Brought some 
distance." They are " decided in opinion that such partiallity 
in proceedings will never obtain the sanction of our Legislators 
however great the personal Influence may be." They there- 
fore respectfully pray that in case the county be divided, the 



31 

seat of justice may be fixed " without paying any attention to 
the proceedings of the Delegates at the Meeting aforesaid." 

The petition of Mountjoy, to which 34 names are signed, 
among them David Horner, Robert and James Hutchison, Sam- 
uel and Patrick Bigham, John and Samuel Adair, Andrew and 
Hugh Guinn, James McAllister, Abraham Bodine, William Da- 
vison, Isaac Hulick, Peter Forney, Andrew Penter, Charles 
Hughes, Andrew Ashbough, Samuel Smith, and Henry Pillow, 
is a vigorous document. The main point is that all the petitions 
had been signed with the understanding that the Legislature 
should " determine on the most eligible spot for a seat of jus- 
tice;" that "in direct violation of such acknowledged general 
agreement a number of Individuals in the Middle Townships, 
fearing the equity of your decision, combined with a few discon- 
tented individuals in the upper and lower Townships who are 
dissatisfied because their signal talents for public usefulness have 
been, and in the present state of County politicks, are likely to 
continue to be overlooked, advertized and held partial Town- 
ship meetings and then chose some of their own complexion 
to Represent them at a general meeting of the Townships pro- 
posed for the fixing upon a spot for the seat of justice." These 
memorialists protested against the decision of said meeting 
" on account of the illicit nature of such proceedings," and — 

1st. "Because numbers of the Inhabitants have been en- 
snared into the aforesaid measures by individuals disposed to 
sacrifice every future and public advantage to the acquisition 
of present personal and pitiful considerations." 

2d. " Because several of the Townships within the proposed 
new County were not Represented at the meeting." 

3d. Because the Representation at it was " extremely dis- 
proportioned and unequal — as Townships containing consider- 
ably less than one hundred taxable Inhabitants had an equal 
vote there with those containing treble or even quadruple that 
number." 

4th. " Because several townships and parts of Townships im- 
mediately within the line last Designated in the petitions, were 
dragged forward to answer the purposes of those who prose- 



32 

cuted the measure, altho' Remonstrances from nine-tenths of 
some of said Townships and parts of Townships are now be- 
fore you against their being included in the new County upon 
any pretext whatsoever. The unfairness of a decision so ob- 
tained is too palpable to escape your detection." 

The remonstrants insist that if public considerations cannot 
determine in favor of a division, all applications made under 
the pitiful influence of private advantage ought to be dismissed 
with the contempt they deserve, and that if division does take 
place the Seat of Justice should be fixed as the wisdom of your 
honorable Houses may choose, at once accommodating the ma- 
jority of the inhabitants of the new County, and possessing 
such natural and local advantages as will attract men of enter- 
prise and capital of every description to settle there, and thus 
promote the greatest possible public good. 

These extracts are interesting as illustrating the spirit in 
which this rivalry was waged, and how personal and other 
motives were freely and forcibly imputed. 

THE BOND PREPARED IN 1 794- 

In anticipation of need for it, the citizens of Gettysburg pre- 
pared and executed a Bond to secure funds for the county 
building. But the overwhelming defeat of the bill saved them 
the opportunit)^ of presenting it. 

1795 TO 1797 INCLUSIVE. 

At the elections of 1794, 1795, 1796, little regard appears 
to have been paid to the New County question, which was not 
mentioned in the Legislature during the service of those dele- 
gations — except that in 1796 there is note, on the 30th of Jan- 
uary, of a petition for, and, on the 5th of March, of a remon- 
strance against, the annexation of Newberry township to 
Dauphin. Newberry lay on the Susquehanna opposite Mid- 
dletown, and then ran up as far as present New Cumberland. 
A public meeting in the township passed resolutions adverse 
to the transfer. Thomas Lilly was dropped at the election of 
1794, and William McPherson, who was beaten in 1793, was 



S3 

put in his place. In the election of 1795, William Miller was 
added from Hamiltonban. At the election of 1796, the same 
members were returned. 

During the winter of i796-'7, the journal shows 1,412 sign- 
ers for a division according to bounds by them described but 
not stated in the journal; and 459 signers against division on 
the above boundaries and praying to be left in the old county. 
There was the old difficulty about the line. One interest ad- 
hered to that of Dogwood Run. By others this was held as " too 
low down," as an impossible line, and as having operated before 
as a " bar to success." Besides, the opinion was freely expressed 
that this whole business is levelled against Gettysburg as the 
seat of justice, the purpose being to fix the line so low down as 
to prevent a division unless they can exclude Gettysburg from 
all chance for the county seat. The Upper Enders prepared 
petitions for a new line, but they appear not to have been pre- 
sented. That new line is not particularized, but in a letter 
from William Scott to William Miller, Esq., March 20, 1797, 
is described as " dividing the territory and population Better 
than in the former petition." In the same winter, petitions 
were signed, asking the Legislature to "fix upon a spot for the 
seat of justice," giving for reason that experience had shown 
that " inconvenience and expense have arisen and may always 
be expected, when this duty is performed by Commissioners, 
instead of by the Legislature directly." I suspect that Gettys- 
burg had by this time determined upon its policy, and pro- 
posed to convince the Legislature, by the means afterwards 
taken, that it was the proper site. 

Of course nothing came of all these diverse movements, ex- 
cept to warn York county that in 1798 something affirmative 
would be undertaken. 

I have two original affidavits which throw light on the peti- 
tions got up in 1797. It appears that a question of fact arose be- 
tween Joseph Obolt, of Heidelberg township, on the one hand, 
and Nicholas Marshall, Jacob Adams, John Slagle and John 
Elder, on the other. And the last named went, agreeably to 
notice, January 19, 1798, before Henry Slagle and John King, 



34 

the former an assistant judge, and the other a justice of the 
peace, and swore to this effect : Mr. Marshall testified that 
sometime in February or March, 1797, he went to Heidelberg 
township to procure signers to a petitionfor a division of York 
county; that no undue influence "or fraudulent means were 
made use of by himself or any other to his knowledge in order 
to procure signers ; and that he did not endeavor to persuade 
Joseph Obolt or any other person, the seat of justice would be 
fixed at Hanover Town or any other particular place, but sig- 
nified that it was expected the Assembly would appoint Com- 
missioners for that purpose agreeable to the tenor of said peti- 
tion. Jacob Adams sustained this statement, stating all he 
said was that " Hanover might have a chance with other places 
that were Proposed," and that Joseph Obolt, when he signed, 
signified he did not wish the seat of justice to come to Hano- 
ver. John Slagle added that Joseph Obolt said that if he was 
sure that the seat of justice would go to Hanover he would not 
sign the petition. John Elder said nothing about Joseph Obolt, 
but said he was at the house of Jacob Wills ; that the petition 
was read to Mr. Wills, and that he looked over it himself, and 
signed it freely. I have never seen the " other side" of this 
question, and give this only as an illustration of the feelings 
engendered by the controversy. Mr. Obolt was living in 1801, 
in the new township of Conewago, made up of the parts of 
Heidelberg and Manheim which fell within our county. His 
assessment then w^as on ;^4,48o worth of property. In 1783, 
his assessment was ^1,127. So that he was a thrifty man. 

THE EFFORT OF 1 798. 

In the fall of 1797, the tone of the York county delegation 
underwent a change. William Miller, of Millerstown, was 
dropped, and Jacob Hostetter, of Hanover, took his place. 
For John Stewart, James Kelly was substituted, after two 
years of absence. These changes meant tightening the lines. 
But this result was not reached without a struggle. Mr. Kelly 
had the meagre majority of but 153 votes, and Mr. Hostetter 
was over 600 votes behind the highest man on his ticket. 



The opposition rallied against Gardner, Hostetter and Kelly, 
all strongly against the new county, and upon William Miller, 
of Hamiltonban, Conrad Sherman, of Manheim, and William 
Wierman, of Huntington, who polled respectively 831, 606, 
and 586 votes. But the whole poll was of much less than half 
the vote in the county — proving that the contest excited little 
interest. Mr. Hostetter remained in the Legislature thence- 
forth till the close of the struggle, and worked steadily 
against the New County. He was a prominent citizen of 
Hanover, was afterwards an Associate Judge, and thence, as 
John Stewart had been, was transferred to Congress. He was 
the maker of the celebrated Hostetter eight-day clocks. Of 
the whole delegation, William McPherson was the only New 
County man. In January, 1798, agitation had developed these 
facts. There were 1,974 petitioners for a division. Of these 
1,418 were in favor of the "lower line," being the line from 
Dogwood Run by Bollinger's to the Maryland line. There 
were 226 in favor of the " upper line," being presumably about 
what was ultimately agreed upon. Of the 1,418 signers for 
the " lower line," there were 494 who prayed that the lower 
line should not be removed more westerly, and, rather than it 
should be, they prayed that division may not take place. 
These may be described as the " irreconcilables," as the men 
who would have all or nothing. These petitions have appar- 
ently been lost ; but it is not difficult to guess from what 
neighborhood they came. There were about 1,600 petitioners 
against any division of the county. Presumably, these latter 
were from the territory threatened with what may be described 
as forcible separation. The proportion for division was, 
therefore, as 2,000 to about 1,600. In the petitions for divis- 
ion were 73 from Paradise township, but during the session a 
petition was presented from a number of the inhabitants of 
said township, stating that some time since they had signed a 
petition for a division which they now revoke, and pray that if 
it take place Paradise township may not be included within it. 
And Heidelbergers remonstrated against being included within 
the new county. 



36 

The Select Committee, after weighing all the facts, reported 
in February, in favor of a new county, but with a line of divi- 
sion which left in the old county the tier of heavy German town- 
ships now joining us on the east. The line proposed began in 
the line of Cumberland county at the road leading from Car- 
lisle to Baltimore, thence along the said road a southerly 
course until it strikes the northeasterly corner of Berwick town- 
ship, thence along the easternmost line of Berwick township 
until it strikes the line of Paradise township, thence along the 
said line westwardly until it strikes the road leading from Ox- 
ford to Hanovertown, and thence a due south course until it 
strikes the Maryland line. 

This line of 1798 is the line finally adopted. The old county 
could reasonably ask nothing more; but having got that much, 
it dici ask more. And Messrs. Kelly and Hostetter, March 19, 
1798, moved to change the line so as to start at the line of 
Cumberland county at Trent's Gap on the great road leading 
past Godfrey's, thence a straight line to the forks of Conewago 
creek at or near the northwest corner of Berwick township, 
thence along the south branch of the Conewago to where it 
strikes the line of Heidelberg township, and thence a due south 
course until it strikes the Maryland line. As within these lim- 
its, no other place than Gettysburg would have been at all ap- 
propriate for a seat of justice, that town was named. The line 
would have left with York county nearly the whole of present 
Latimore, the south-eastern triangle of Huntington, the whole 
of Reading, the whole of present Hamilton, of present Oxford 
and of Berwick, all except a strip of present Conewago, and 
about one-third of Germany. The line, following the Little 
Conewago, would have been west of New Oxford, west of the 
Conewago Chapel, west of the Kitzmiller mill. The reduction 
of territory below the line reported by the committee would 
have been, probably, one-fifth. The proposition was absurd. 
But no votes were taken, except on motion to appoint Com- 
missioners to examine lines and the seat of justice. This was 
rejected — 21 to 41, all the York delegation voting for it except 
Mr. McPherson who was asfainst it. The bill then went over 



37 

for a year, and was recommended to the next Legislature. 
Evidently York was fighting for terms. The delegation wished 
to save what they could. And this movement was a piece of 
tactics. They felt that there would be closer quarters in 1799. 

THE EFFORT OF 1/99. 

In 1798, there was no material change in the York delega- 
tion. Again it was one against five — Campbell, Hostetter and 
Kelly being the leaders against the solitary one, McPherson, 
allowed to speak for these persistent and determined agitators. 
Meantime, the Gettysburg* interest sent to Philadelphia as its 
special agent Capt. Alexander Cobean. He was armed with 
documents to answer the objections offered to the site. These 
documents were presented to the Legislature, but they are not 
so described on the journal as to be distinctly stated. As a 
counter movement to Gettysburg petitions were sent, asking 
that the seat of justice be placed within " certain circumscribed 
bounds." To which, February 4, certain other petitions replied 
by asking that a " central place" be fixed by law for the seat of 
justice. Evidently, the county seat was in everybody's mind. 

In January, the Select Committee reported the bill with the 
same line as last year, with the county seat vacant. Messrs. 
Hostetter and Kelly moved to substitute the line proposed by 
them last year; but the motion received only 17 votes. There 
were 54 against it — more than three to one. The affirmative 
vote consisted of Messrs. Albright (York), Brown, Campbell 
(York), Fisher, Hemphill, Hostetter (York), Home, Keppele, 
Kelly (York), Palmer, Preston, Seckel, Stocker, A. Scott, 
Snyder, Welles, Evans, Speaker. McPherson was the only 
York county Representative in the negative. Mr. Turner did 

* Gettysburg gave numerous signs of activity during the fall of 1798. 
This note appears to me to be one, though I do not fully comprehend 
its purport or its effect : 

D'r Sir : Capt. Samuel Russell informs me that the Conewago Com- 
mittee is to meet us this day at 2 o'clock in Gettysburgh. 

WM. Mcpherson, 

Capt. Sam'l Cobean. Sept. 8, lygS. 



38 

not vote. These seventeen were out-and-out enemies of the 
New county. 

Decisively beaten on the main proposition, the opponents 
of the bill resorted to dilatory and distracting motions. 
Messrs. Kelly and Hostetter moved that the seat of justice be 
at Hunterstown, but it was defeated by a vote of 26 to 54. Of 
the Select Committee, seven in number, three voted for this. 
The York county members divided as before. 

The twenty-six who voted for Hunterstown were : Messrs. 
Albright of York, Brown of Lancaster, Barclay of Bedford, 
Blair of Huntingdon, Campbell of York, Fisher of Philadelphia, 
Forster of Dauphin, Hemphill of Chester, Hostetter of York, 
Home of Northampton, Keppele of Philadelphia, Kelly of 
York, Mewhorter of Northampton, Miller of Somerset, Power of 
Cumberland, Palmer of Delaware, Preston of Delaware, Seckel 
of Philadelphia, Stocker of Philadelphia, Stover of Bucks, A. 
Scott of Lancaster, Wharton of Philadelphia, Watson of Bucks, 
Welles of Luzerne, Williamson of Mifflin, Evans of Phila- 
delphia, Speaker. 

Messrs. Campbell and Kelly then moved that the seat of 
justice be at, or not exceeding one mile from, Hugh King's 
farm. This was defeated by a vote of 5 (Messrs. Campbell, 
Hostetter, Keppele, Kelly, and A. Scott), to 61. Messrs. 
Kelly and Cambell, to show impartiality, then moved that the 
seat of justice be at Gettysburg; which was lost, by a vote of 
13 to 52 — the friends of Gettysburg generally opposing. Evi- 
dently the latter thought it wise to postpone this issue till there 
was less excitement upon it. The thirteen who voted for the 
motion were: Messrs. Bull of Chester, Campbell of York, 
Forster of Dauphin, Hostetter of York, Keppele of Phila- 
delphia, Kelly of York, Mewhorter of Northampton, Palmer 
and Preston of Delaware, Seckel of Philadelphia, Strickler of 
Lancaster, A. Scott of Lancaster, Welles of Luzerne. 

Messrs. A. Scott of Lancaster, and Wharton of Philadelphia, 
both enemies of the bill, then offered a motion that the place 
for the seat of justice be left blank in the bill to be reported. 
This was agreed to — yeas 42, nays 26. Of the five York 



39 

county members who voted, all except Hostetter voted aye. 
Those who supported the anti-Gettysburg interest voted gen- 
erally for this motion, as did McPherson who was distinctively 
a Gettysburg man. So that the vote cannot be accepted as 
proving anything except that both sides were preparing for a 
renewal of the struggle, when the bill should be reported. 

The resolution to direct the preparation of the New County 
bill with the seat of justice left blank was then agreed to — 
yeas 51, nays 19. In the nineteen were again included the 
faithful York county four : Albright, Campbell, Hostetter and 
Kelly; against them, the as faithful McPherson, with Turner 
absent. And on the 24th of January, 1799, the bill was re- 
ported according to order. 

On the 2d of February, 1799, the "citizens of Getty's-town " 
appeared, for the first time, formally on the scene. 

Mr. Andrew Dunlop, of Franklin, presented a representation 
and proposition from Capt. Alexander Cobean, agent of the in- 
habitants of Getty's-town and its vicinity, stating that if the 
county of York should be divided, the said Getty's-town, in 
point of situation and natural advantages, will be the place most 
eligible for the seat of justice of the proposed new county, and 
proposing, on condition the said seat of justice be so fixed: 

1st. A conveyance of the ground-rent on the town- lots, in 
trust for the benefit of the new county ; also a convenient lot 
of ground for a jail. 

2d. A bond, executed by nine sufficient freeholders, securing 
the payment of seven thousand dollars, for the purpose of de- 
fraying the expenses of the public buildings.* 

* The same plan was proposed in 1785, when Dauphin county was 
erected. John Harris then gave his bond to Trustees, binding himself 
to convey his ferry and landing, with other estate, conditioned on the 
creation of Dauphin county and the location of the county seat on the 
estate of the said John Harris. The contract was carried out, and on 
November 28, 1790, the Commissioners represented to the Legislature 
that the county seat was at one extremity of the county, " causing much 
inconvenience to the inhabitants," and asked that so much of the rents of 
the ferry as may be sufficient for completing the necessary public build- 
ings be appropriated to that use. An act to this effect was passed April 
5. 1793- 



40 

In Committee of the Whole, Gettysburg was inserted in the 
blank. 

Undoubtedly one of the arguments used against the erection 
of the new county with effect among tax-payers was the ex- 
pense of the new buildings. This offer met that argument 
with the tax-payers, but it did not carry the Legislature. 
Within five days, a counter petition, but lacking a pecuniary 
offer, asking that John Murphy's be made the seat of justice, was 
presented to the Legislature. And in the next week, on the 
13th of February, 1799, the bill was amended, when on second 
reading, on motion of Messrs. Kennedy, of Cumberland, and 
Linnard, of Philadelphia county, by striking out Gettysburg, 
and inserting the words, "at the Low Dutch Meeting House 
near the forks of the road." The vote was 42 to 23. 

The negative note on this proposition consisted of Messrs, 
Albright of York, Bull of Chester, Brown of Lancaster, Camp- 
bell of York, Erwin of Bucks, Forster of Dauphin, Hall of Phil- 
adelphia, Hemphill of Chester, Hannum of Chester, Hostetter 
of York, Kirk of Chester, Keys of Lancaster, Kelly of York, 
McPherson of York, Preston of Delaware, Seckel of Philadel- 
phia, Stocker of Philadelphia, A. Scott of Lancaster, Speer of 
Franklin, Taylor of Chester, Turner of York, Welles of Lu- 
zerne, Evans, Speaker, of Philadelphia. All of the York county 
members voted in the negative. 

This location is about five miles east of Gettysburg, on the 
road to York, and near the intersection of the Black's Gap (or 
Hunterstown) road. It is about half a mile East of the Duttera 
Station on the railroad. It was the most formidable rival Get- 
tysburg had, being, to be sure, away from the centre counting 
east and west, but nearer than Gettysburg to the centre north 
and' south. It was a less convenient site than Gettysburg 
because less accessible by roads, but had, probably, the merit 
of being less identified with personal interests and ambitions 
than any one of the others. At all events, it captured the Leg- 
islature of 1799. The York county delegation, generally di- 
vided on every phase of the Division question, now united in 
opposition to" this, but it was overborne, Mr. McPherson was 



41 

always for Gettysburg. Why the others opposed " the Low 
Dutch meeting house," is one of the unknown facts of this affair, 
unless they supposed that this amendment would strengthen 
the bill. But he voted for the bill, notwithstanding the loca- 
tion. In that form the bill passed the House on the 
14th of February, 1799, by the decisive vote of 52 yeas to 
18 nays. 

As this was the only yea and nay vote in the House on the 
passage of the bill, it is important to note the eighteen who 
resisted to this point. They were Messrs. Albright of York, 
Bull of Chester, Brown of Lancaster, Campbell of York, Fisher 
of Philadelphia, Hemphill of Chester, Hannum of Chester, Hos- 
tetter of York, Home of Northampton, Keppele of Philadel- 
phia, Kirk of Chester, Kelly of York, Powers of Cumberland, 
Palmer of Delaware, A. Scott of Lancaster, Turner of York, 
Welles of Luzerne, Evans, Speaker, of Philadelphia. An exam- 
ination of this vote shows its weakness. It came from a small 
group of counties. The affirmative vote was nearly three times 
as large, and was scattered over the State. And it made inev- 
itable the passage of the bill at the next session. 

So that the first Division bill which got through the House 
was in the tenth year after the achievement of Thomas Clingan, 
the line was substantially the same, and the county seat was 
"the Low Dutch Meeting House Property" in Straban town- 
ship. 

In the Senate the bill met the opposition of York County's vet- 
eran Senator, James Ewing, who had been a private in the French 
and Indian war of 1755, a lieutenant in the Forbes Expedition 
of 1758, a brigadier general in the Revolutionary War, and a 
vice-president of the Council under the first Constitution of the 
State, having been in the Assembly from 1771 to 1775 inclu- 
sive. Alexander Russell, Esq., agent for Gettysburg, at once 
made a representation to the Senate on the county-seat ques- 
tion. He stated that the petitions which asked that the county 
seat be fixed within " certain circumscribed bounds," were in 
the interest of ten other places combined against Gettysburg, 
and that in this way many signers had been obtained — "which 



42 

said places, or many of them, would be as much opposed to each 
other, setting Gettysburg out of view, as they now are united 
against it." Besides, he said, the partiality of the ineasure is 
obvious, " as their Eastern boundary is within four miles of the 
dividing line, and the western boundary falls short of the 
centre." He further set forth that signers, it is well known, 
may be gotten to any kind of petition; that many of these peti- 
tions have been improperly signed, in proof of which he quoted 
the affidavits of two reputable freeholders accidentally discov- 
ered, stating that they had been imposed on in the matter; and 
that these petitions were signed by the people before they 
knew, generally, that the proprietor of Gettysburg had given 
the ground rents to the new county, or that the public build- 
ings would be erected without any expense to them. He called 
attention to the more important advantages of Gettysburg, such 
as centrality, healthy and pleasant situation, soil, produce, 
water, materials for building, etc., and expressed the opinion 
that upon a fair experiment Gettysburg would have more ad- 
vocates than any other individual spot proposed. 

On the i8th of February, sundry inhabitants of Berwick 
township came to the front with a remonstrance and petition 
stating as a fact the running of a line, by agreement, as a 
division line, to accommodate a majority of the inhabitants of 
the western part of York county, as a new county, &c., and 
praying that if a division line be adopted which is west of said 
line, the line may be so run as to exclude Berwick township 
and leave it within the old county. I find nowhere else a 
reference to this division line said to have been run by agree- 
ment, and assume that the agreement referred to must have 
been among the advocates of the Dogwood Run line. The 
Senate proved to be nearly equally divided on the bill, which, 
however, got through the Committee of the Whole with sundry 
amendments, of which none can now be stated. Mr. Ewing of 
York antagonized the lint laid down in the bill, and proposed 
a new one: to begin at the same point in the Cumberland 
county line, at the road leading from Carlisle to Baltimore, 
through Trent's Gap [printed in the journal, Trance], by God- 



43 

frey's, thence along said road by Deardorffs mill until it strikes 
the great road leading from Black's Gap through Abbottstown, 
thence along a straight line to Jacob Kitzmiller's mill [printed 
Ritmiller's,] thence by a due south course to the Maryland 
line. This was only less radical than the Kelly and Hostetter 
line of the previous House. It would have retained for York 
half of Latimore, more than half of Reading, t*vo-thirds of 
Hamilton, half of Oxford and Berwick, about half of Conewago 
and a strip of Germany. It was probably not offered with an 
expectation of adoption — rather as piece of strateg}'' so that, at 
the next session, out of the numerous lines proposed York 
could more likely secure an advantageous compromise. In this 
sense the movement was shrewd, though its terms were pre- 
posterous. But the bill, without a vote on lines, was post- 
poned till the next session by a vote of yeas 12, nays 1 1. The 
close of the session of 1799 left the bill in strong position for 
the next year, but with Gettysburg decidedly in the back- 
ground for the county seat. The " Low Dutch Meeting House 
property" had secured a great advantage. 

THE SUCCESS OF 1 8oO. 

There were two changes made in the York county delegation 
at the election of 1799. James Kelly was dropped. We do not 
certainly know why, but it is a reasonable inference that he 
saw that division on a moderate line was inevitable, that his 
time was too precious to be wasted in such a fight which was 
certain to be lost, and which, by this time, he probably thought 
ought to be lost, and that he was indifferent as to the site of 
the county seat. This latter was really the only debatable 
question before the Assembly. In Mr. Kelly's j;jlace came 
Yost Herbach (now spelled Harbaugh), a son of the old Yost 
who first settled in Berks county in 1736, and who about 
1743 moved to Hellam township, then Lancaster, now York 
county, and settled on the bank of Kreutz creek, where he had 
seven sons and three daughters. This Yost, when but four- 
teen, was a teamster in the Braddock exdedition, and was after- 
wards a Captain in the Revolutionary Army. He was of 



44 

stalwart proportions, and died of cholera at the great age of 
eighty-nine years. He lived in the immediate vicinity of York. 
Philip Albright was dropped at the close of his first term, and 
Capt. Alexander Cobean, took his place. This was a great 
gain for the new county project, and a greater gain for the 
Gettysburg interest. Mr. Cobean was a man of superior in- 
telligence, of agreeble manners, and of great force of character. 
He was for many j^ears one of the most active citizens of 
Marsh creek, owned the Plank (lately Bream) Mill, and moved 
from it to Gettysburg about 1796. He was the candidate for 
Congress of the Federal party in 18 14, was the first President of 
the Bank of Gettysburg, was Captain of a company who marched 
to Baltimore in 18 14, and became a Colonel in command of 
troops in the battle of North Point, and died April 2, 1823, aged 
57 years. Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, who came to Gettysburg 
in the fall of 1816, told me that he regarded Col. Cobean the 
strongest man then in the community. In 1800, there was no 
citizen here more effective for the task put upon him, to try to 
secure for Gettysburg the county seat. The citizens concerned 
sent to Lancaster, then the capital of the State, as their Com- 
missioner Col. John Agnew, one of the most trusted and capa- 
ble men in the community, and one of the deputies of 1794 who 
favored Sturgeon's. He lived until 18 14, and at death was 
aged eighty years. His farm was in Hamiltonban township, 
now owned by Henry H. Wintrode. At the same time the 
citizens of Gettysburg executed a bond in the sum of over $8,- 
000, for expenditure in putting up county buildings, and se- 
cured from Mr. Gettys the transfer of certain ground rents for 
the use of the county. 

Before Col. Agnew reached Lancaster, the County bill had 
been reported to the Senate, from the Select Committee to 
whom certain new petitions had been referred. Among these 
was a petition from Hanover, stating certain circumstances 
relative to the seat of justice, and praying that the line of the 
new county may be extended along the line of Berwick and 
Heidelberg townships to the Little Conewago. That would 
have kept the whole of Conewago township and about half of 



45 

Germany in York County. Part of 'Paradise relented, and 
prayed that under certain conditions they might be included 
in the new county. Monaghan, on the other hand, prayed 
that if the seat of justice be fixed "west of the situations there- 
in mentioned, they be left in the old county," which was a 
clear blow at Gettysburg. A few days thereafter additional 
petitions for Gettysburg were presented. In this situation of 
affairs, Gen. Ewing, from the Select Committee, reported the 
bill December 14, 1799. The division line proposed in the 
bill was Gen. Ewing's line offered the previous year, viz., from 
Trent's Gap by Godfrey's, Deardorff's and McTagg's* to the 
Maryland line, so as to leave Hanover Town half a mile to 
the eastward. But the bill contained a clause in the third sec- 
tion, that the Courts of the new couaty should be held at 
certain dates, and "at the town of Gettysburg." This was a 
great point gained for Gettysburg. The division line reported 
by the Committee was badly defeated in the Senate, It re- 
ceived but three votes: Messrs. Ewing, Stewart and Mew- 
horter. The line desired by Gettysburg, and passed at the 
previous session by the House, remained in the bill. But an 
effort was made by Messrs. Findlay and Maclay to add to the 
clause fixing Gettysburg as the place for holding courts 
the damaging words, " until a permanent situation for the 
public buildings be determined on." This was lost, but only 
by a tie vote. The matter was debated, when on a rising vote 
there were on the amendment 12 yeas and ii nays, but John 
Woods,t the Speaker of the Senate, voted nay, made the tie 

*This was a contraction of McTaggert's, the real name. This property 
was James McTaggert's till 1799, when sold by the sheriff, and bought 
by William Gitt, in the possession of whose descendants it still is. It was 
known as the " Cross Keys," between New Oxford and Abbottstown. 

t John Woods was a distinguished lawyer of Pittsburgh. He was born 
in Bedford, and in 1784 assisted in laying out Pittsburgh. He was in full 
practice for many years, and particularly strong in tenure and ejectment 
cases. He was chosen a Presidential elector in 1796, a State Senator in 
1797, and a Representative in Congress in 181 5. He died in 1817, leav- 
ing a daughter, who married Judge Henry M. Brackenridge, and brought 
him large wealth. — Agnew on the Pittsburgh Bar. 



46 

and defeated the clailse. By so narrow a margin did the 
Senate defeat an amendment intended to keep the county site 
question open, to the detriment of Gettysburg. In that shape 
the bill passed the Senate without further division. The di- 
vision line in the Senate bill was substantially the same as that 
adopted in the previous House, and this House made no 
amendment to it except a verbal one, to which no one ob- 
jected. In the House, no movement was made on the county 
site question; Gettysburg held its place as the county seat, 
and the bill finally passed. Governor McKean approved it 
January 22, 1800. 

There was great uneasiness in the Marsh Creek region all 
that winter. I have a letter written by Alexander Russell, 
Esq., to William McPherson and Alexander Cobean, and 
dated December 19, 1799, which makes this plain. After 
news was received of the amended line by Godfrey's, Dear- 
dorff's and McTagg's, there was, on the 19th, a "pretty full 
meeting. The Rev. Mr. Dobbin presided. We think with you, 
that by the present report we have not an equal division of 
the County, and would sincerely wish it otherwise; and still 
hope that an amendment will take place in the Senate yet, so 
as to leave us all Berwick township. But, gentlemen, should 
it pass the Senate and be sent to your House in the present 
form — viz., from Trent's Gap past Godfrey's, Deardorff's, Mc- 
Tagg's, etc. — we are unanimously of opinion that for you to 
propose an amendment such as [is] mentioned in Capt. 
Cobean's letter (which would be a very good one) or any 
other, might prove fatal to the Division. We conceive this 
report to be made with intent to defeat, expecting that we 
would not accept of this line, they might then have some foun- 
dation to deny any other line." 

As showing the sanguine expectations which rose-colored 
the views of the enthusiastic, this additional extract is inter- 
esting: "We are also confidently of opinion that, should we 
obtain this small division now, so soon as our public buildings 
are erected, and the people are able to see, without prejudice, 
the advantages of fixing the seat of Justice here, the ease and 



47 

convenience of getting their business done in the New County, 
and the perpetual fund, &c. — not only the People of Ber- 
wick and onwards toward the mountain now excluded, but 
Hanover itself, will pray to be annexed to the new County." 

It appears that there was a convention of deputies called in 
the winter of 1800, with a view to throw the county seat to 
one of the eastern points. But this letter states that the Con- 
vention had no representative from Hamiltonban, Cumber- 
land, Franklin, Mountjoy, Germany or Berwick, and that the 
Deputies who met did not organize as such but acted as indi- 
viduals. The letter further states that the petitions of 1799, 
on the County seat question, were procured by a union of 
"Ten separate Interests," but that "this year some of these 
(Oxford, &c.,) have broken off, and, we are told, petition for 
themselves." The bond was renewed, "but not on stamped 
paper, as we had no stamp large enough." The bond was 
endorsed as abundant, being above a thousand dollars of a 
surplus, with but ;^229 doubtful, "on a close scrutiny." It was 
signed by Messrs. Henry Hoke, James Scott, Wm. McClellan, 
George Kerr, Wm. McPherson, Alex. Cobean, Alex. Irvine, 
Alex. Russell, Walter Smith, Wm. Hamilton, John Myer, 
Emmanuel Ziegler, and Samuel Sloan. The bond satisfied 
the Legislature that the general interest of the taxpayer would 
be promoted by placing the seat of justice at Gettysburg, and 
the point long striven for by the then owners and occupiers of 
this town was finally won. At the last, it is clear that Gen. 
Ewing, Senator from York, who had antagonized the bill to 
the extent of his ability, helped the cause of Gettysburg, with 
many of whose citizens he had had, since 1758, pleasant personal 
relations, and there, is evidence extant that he was urged by 
reason of this friendliness to give them help when he could. 

Of the points named for the county seat, three were then 
plotted : Hunterstown, Gettysburg, and New Oxford, named 
in the order of age. Hunterstown was plotted in 1749 or 1750, 
probably; Gettysburg in 1787; New Oxford in 1792. Gettys- 
burg was undoubtedly the most conspicuous, because the 
centre of the widely known Marsh Creek settlement, with 



48 

which it early came to be closely identified. The Gettys fam- 
ily were original settlers. Samuel Gettys took out his first 
warrant in May, 1740. The next record of the name is in 
1767 in the report on a proposed line of road from Bus's lane, 
below Littlestown northward, in which " Mr. Gettys' house" is 
named as one of the points. In 1772, Samuel Gettys, who died 
in 1790, is upon the Penn Records as keeping a tavern in Cum- 
berland township. In 1775, troops gathered at it for the Con- 
tinental service. In 1785, James Gettys had a store here. In 
1787, April 17, James Gettys, the proprietor, obtained a deed 
from the two Penns, (John Junior and John Esquire,) " late Pro- 
prietaries of Pennsylvania," for one hundred and sixteen acres, 
and the town is presumed to have been at once regularly laid 
out. In October 16, 1787, the town had grown to be popu- 
larly known, in Rev. Dr. Dobbin's way of spelling it, as " Get- 
tistown." In 1795, it sought by the petition of fourteen out of 
sixteen business men, now known to have been inhabitants, to 
secure a postoffice, the nearest to them being Hagerstown on 
the west and York on the east. In 1798, it succeeded. By 
1800, this enterprising community had secured position as the 
community's center of influence, and it had a right to claim to 
be the seat of justice of the new county. 

This new county bill was one often new county bills passed 
by the Legislature of 1800. But it preceded them all, and 
was the only one in the eastern part of the State. The others 
were west of the Alleghenies, except Centre. The statement 
in the Chicago History of Adams county, printed in 1886, that 
the county bill was finally passed by the " log rolling process " 
— a combination of the various new county interests in the 
legislature — is without any foundation in fact. It is a mere 
guess of ignorance. 

The population of Adams in 1800 was 13,171, The popu- 
lation of York after division was 25,663. So that the territory 
left to York was nearly double that taken from it, and the pop- 
ulation left to York'was in about the same proportion. Prob- 
ably the greatest resistance to the new county was in the old 
townships of Heidelberg, Manheim, and Paradise. Adams 



49 

took 448 of the population of the first, 22 of the second, and 
none of the third. These became the inhabitants of our Cone- 
wago. Besides, Adams got 35 from Monaghan, and 87 from 
Warrington. These became, with part of Huntington, our 
Latimore. Otherwise, the townships of York remained intact, 
and held the portion of Huntington and Reading townships 
which lay east of the division line. 

The Dogwood Run line, for which a stand was made in 
1793. would have taken almost exactly one-half the population 
then existing in York county, and given each county a popu- 
lation of about 20,000. The stubborn resistance made to that 
line saved to York the fertile and populous townships for 
whose seizure it was devised, and secured to York its compa- 
rative supremacy in both territory and population. Besides, it 
delayed by several years the creation of Adams county, whose 
coming in 1800, with modified and reasonable lines, and with 
unembittered opposition at the end, brought peace to both 
sides, and removed every obstacle to the continued prosperity 
of both the mother county and the daughter county. 

THE VARIOUS DIVISION LINES PROPOSED. 

I append a lithographic map of the region. It is based upon 
and taken from Howell's map of 1792. I have inserted certain 
settlements named in the text. With its aid, it will be easy to 
follow the various division lines proposed. The two chief lines 
are distinctly marked, viz.: the existing line and the Dogwood 
Run line by Rudy's Tavern (afterwards, and for many years, 
King's) and Bollinger's Mill to the Maryland line. A reference 
to this map will enable every reader to see exactly what each 
measure meant. 

These are the lines, in the order of time: 

I. In 1790 — Trent's Gap to mouth of Abbott's run, along it 
to Heidelberg line, thence south, excluding Hanover. 
This passed the Assembly to the third reading, on publi- 
cation, but the bill did not reach the final stage for action. 
II. In 1792 — Mouth of Dogwood Run to Closse's Mill, to 
Eichelberger's Tavern, and south to Maryland line. This 



50 

was the line suggested by the Hunterstown Convention, 
but not pressed. 

III. In 1793 — Mouth of Dogwood Run to "Rudy's Tavern," 
to " Bollinger's Mill," south to Maryland line. This was 
petitioned for by 1,569 inhabitants, in connection^ with 
the Sturgeon land site for the county seat, and defeated 
without a division in the House of Representatives. 

IV. In 1798 — Trent's Gap to the northeasterly line of Ber- 
wick, along Berwick to Paradise, northwardly to the road 
leading from Oxford to Hanover, thence south to the 
Maryland line. This was reported by the select commit- 
tee of the House. 

V. In 1798 — Trent's Gap, straight line to forks of Cone- 
wago at northwest corner of Berwick, thence along the 
south branch of the Conewago to the line of Heidelberg 
township, thence south to Maryland line. This was the 
Hostetter and Kelly amendment in the House ; not voted 
on. It was renewed in 1799, and defeated, 17 to 54. 
VI. In 1799 — Trent's Gap road by Godfrey's, thence along 
said road by Deardorff's Mill to the Black's Gap road 
from Abbottstown, thence by straight line to Jacob Kitz- 
miller's Mill, thence due south to the Maryland line. 
This was the Ewing amendment in the Senate, which re- 
ceived but three votes. 

VII. In 1800, the line as adopted, being Trent's Gap by Car- 
lisle and Baltimore road to Binder's, straight line to 
mouth of Abbott's Run, along Berwick and Paradise 
township line till it strikes Manheim, westwardly along 
Manheim and Berwick line to the Oxford and Hunters- 
town road, thence south to Maryland line. This is the 
line established in the act of division. 

Lines II. and III. marked the limit of new county audacity. 

Lines V. and VI. marked the limit of old county spite. 

Lines I., IV. and VII. are substantially the same. The line of 
1790, for which Thomas Clingan, unaided, made a suc- 
cessful struggle in the beginning, is almost identical with 
the line which, by general concurrence, the Legislature 
adopted as a just close to a bitter ten years' struggle. 



THE STORY 



Creation of Adams County, 

PENNSYLVANIA, 



AND OF THE 



SELECTION OE GE'ITYSBURG 

AS ITS 

SEAT OF JUSTICE. 



An Address before the Historical Society of Adams County, on its 
First Anniversary, May 6, 1889. 



By HON. EDWARD McPHERSON, 

PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY. 



With Map of the Territory, Showing Lines, Roads, and Settlements. 



LANCASTER, PA. : 

INQUIRER PRINTING COMPANY. 

1889. 



I 



